Vishnu Sahasra Namam and Katapayadi Scheme

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 08 Jan 2008, 18:39

To explain the katapayathi method, the following verse from VISHNU SAHASRANAMAM will be illustrative.

SRI RAMA RAMA RAMETHI
RAME RAAME MANORAME
SAHASRA NAMA THATTULYAM
RAMA NAMA VARAANANE.

How can the utterance of the name of Rama, 3 times can be equivalent to 1000 names of Vishnu? This is how:

From above katapayathi numerological method Ra = 2, ma = 5 and 2 x 5 = 10. As Ramas name is uttered 3 times, its value is 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000. How nice !

http://www.mudgala.com/sri-krishna-mang ... hisha.html

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 08 Jan 2008, 21:31

Very beautiful and intuitive!
Thanks for the quote.

vageyakara · Post by **vageyakara** » 08 Jan 2008, 21:45

vow !! wonderful.!!!till this date I havre not been knowing this MATHAMAGICS !!!
Nay ................................................... .(H)ARITHMAGICS !!!!!
RAMARAJ

mahesh3 · Post by **mahesh3** » 09 Jan 2008, 01:56

Ofcourse, all the 72 melakarthas are also named using this katapayathi scheme...nice connection there!

VGV sir, can u elaborate more on the impact of Surya and Nakshatrams? I'd like a little more insight, if possible...

srikanthnarayan · Post by **srikanthnarayan** » 09 Jan 2008, 08:50

I'm not sure that the basic premise in the application of the Katapayadi above is correct. At least in the 72-mela scheme, one doesn't multiply the numbers. They are only inverted as they are. For example, in Kanakangi, by taking the first two syllables as stipulated, you would get the values Ka = 1 and Na = 0, which when inverted becomes 01. That is the first mela.

To give another example, in Charukesi we get the values Cha = 6 and Ra (ru) = 2, which when inverted becomes 26.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 09 Jan 2008, 12:47

mahesh,
IMHO, the katapayadi scheme was basically meant for naming child (nAma karaNam) based on asterisms which has been extended to other applications also. Please refer to website for more information - http://varahamihira.blogspot.com/2004/0 ... aming.html

vasya10 · Post by **vasya10** » 09 Mar 2008, 04:21

vgvindan,

Thanks very much for explanation ! Several years ago, I was told that mathematically this sloka indeed gave raise to 1000, by using ra and ma (2,5). I used to try applying in various ways but couldnt derive it. But this explanation is certainly simple and elegant !

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 09 Mar 2008, 08:10

What is quoted indeed is the words of Lord Siva himself who meditates on Lord Sri rAma (at vAraNAsi) that is included as the response to the query by his consort pArvati in the phalashruti of viShNusahasranAma.

I visualized Lord Sri Rama sporting similar thoughts at Rameshvaram over Lord Siva himself, contemplating to return the compliment would if queried by his consort SitA dEvi in concluding the phalashruti of SivasahasranAma would have remarked

This is how it goes:

Sri rAma uvAca:
OM namashivAya iti sak^Rit japitvA naraH |
sahasra phalamApnOti na atra samshayaH ||

(If any person says even once 'OM nama shivAya' then he undoubtedly attains the fruit of saying the mantra a thousand times.)

This shlOka is technically right since my last name is Rama and I am the composer with of course a vision from the Lord.

One need not question the potency of chanting the pancAkShara, but the shloka is also mathematically correct (using the kaTapayAdi scheme), the demonstarion of which I leave as an exercise to our dear Rasikas

SivarAtri Greetings!

sanskritscholar · Post by **sanskritscholar** » 19 Mar 2008, 07:05

This is how it goes:

Sri rAma uvAca:
OM namashivAya iti sak^Rit japitvA naraH |
sahasra phalamApnOti na atra samshayaH ||

(If any person says even once 'OM nama shivAya' then he undoubtedly attains the fruit of saying the mantra a thousand times.)

This shlOka is technically right since my last name is Rama and I am the composer with of course a vision from the Lord.

This is my first post to this forum. I am not much into Carnatic music, but a friend of mine, who is a Sanskrit lover, told me to check out the discussions on the katapayadi scheme here. This is the only reason I am posting now.

cmlover, your verse is very defective. It is not in shlOka meter, so it can not be called a shlOka. Sandhi rules dictates shivAya + iti will become shivAyeti and na atra will become nAtra. All in all, it is a very poor composition and does not fit into a proper poetic meter. I am told you have composed musical pieces too. I can only wonder what their quality is like!

As for the original post on this thread, where rAma is interpreted as 10, that is a creative explanation, but it is not how katapayadi works. srikanthnarayan is right when he notes that one doesn't multiply the digits, but reverses their order. rAma would be 52, not 10.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 19 Mar 2008, 10:22

Dear Mr Show off
the sandhi's were broken for convenience of understanding. Nor was my intention to follow any chandas but just to make a point. The kaTapayAdi is used only for the number coding , but the numbers are multiplied (except zero which is affixed (not multiplied)). There is no reversal of the digits. Some of us found the explanations ingenious and you have the prerogative to have your pick

You are welcome to participate in our discussions but you seem to have an attitudinal problem. Perhaps a dose of Valium may help to start with

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 19 Mar 2008, 19:27

I agree with cml. Mr.Sanskritscholar should take a deep breath and learn how to express his knowledge constructively without affecting another's self esteem.

sanskritscholar · Post by **sanskritscholar** » 20 Mar 2008, 04:30

cmlover, my post was to meant to tell you not to show off. I have no reason to show off on this forum. As I said, I am not much into Carnatic music, but I am very much into Sanskrit. I won't be posting much here, unless there is a Sanskrit related reason to do so.

Mr. Raman, thanks for the advice, but I don't think cmlover's self-esteem is all that fragile.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Mar 2008, 07:01

Dear SS, you are absolutely right!
Otherwise I would have 'shrunk' instead of remaining a 'shrink'